Mark dialog as read

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context about scoping (up to a specific message id or all) but does not disclose further side effects such as changes to unread counts or accountId implications. This is moderate transparency beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and optional behavior without unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured, earning a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with only three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main behavior and the optional maxId scoping, but it omits details about the accountId parameter and what the tool returns after execution. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for peer and maxId (67% coverage). The description echoes the maxId behavior but adds no new meaning and leaves accountId undocumented. Since the schema handles most parameters, the description contributes only marginally.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear, specific action: 'Mark a dialog (and optionally up to a specific message id) as read.' This uses a precise verb and resource, and distinguishes the tool's scope from any sibling tools. No other sibling provides this exact functionality, so the purpose is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you want to mark a dialog as read) and the optional maxId parameter provides conditional behavior, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No alternative tool is referenced, so the guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.